MANOJ KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 5. 10. 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 12970/2007.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the appellant filed W. P. No. 12970/2007 claiming that the members of Sendri Gram Panchayat adopted a resolution dated 28. 1. 2007 under the supervision of Tahsildar, Niwari appointing the appellant as Panchayat Karmi of the Gram Panchayat and accordingly the appellant joined as Panchayat Karmi on 28. 3. 2007 and started working. But, all of a sudden the Collector Tikamgarh issued an advertisement on 30. 8. 2007 for recruitment of Panchayat Karmis on various Gram Panchayats including Gram Panchayat, Sendri. Being aggrieved the appellant filed W. P. No. 12970/2007 praying for quashing the advertisement dated 30. 8. 2007 issued by the Collector, Tikamgarh and for permitting the appellant to work on the existing post of panchayat Karmi. The learned Single Judge without issuing notice to the respondents dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 5. 10. 2007 with the observation that there were atleast two female candidates mentioned at Serial Nos. 5 and 11 and it is clear in clause 3. 4 of the Panchayat Karmi Yojna that female candidates will be given preference while making selection on the post of Panchayat Karmi and this having not been observed the resolution dated 28. 3. 2007 of the gram Panchayat is in violation of Panchayat Karmi Yojna. In the impugned order dated 5. 10. 2007 the learned Single Judge further observed that 15 out of 20 panchas have opposed the selection of the petitioner on the ground that the mark-list submitted by the petitioner is a forged one. This is clearly mentioned in the resolution itself and thus, the resolution is in violation of the Panchayat Karmis Yojna and for this reason the Court is not inclined to interfere in the writ petition.

(3.) MR. Abhishek Arjaria, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 70 of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act') Panchayat has the power to appoint any officers or servants other than the Panchayat Secretary. He further submitted that previous approval of the prescribed authority, namely, the collector of the district, is required only for the posts for which the officers or other servants of the Panchayat are to be appointed for the efficient discharge of its duties and not to the named officer or named servant for a Panchayat. He submitted that when the case of the appellant clearly was that he had been appointed by the Panchayat under section 70 (1) of the Act as a Panchayat Karmi and along with writ petition the appellant had also annexed not only the resolution of the panchayat appointing the appellant as Panchayat Karmi but also the order dated 22. 8. 2007 of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in which it was stated that the Panchayat in its resolution dated 28. 1. 2007 appointed the appellant as Panchayat Karmi, the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition in limine and instead ought to have issued notices to the respondents if he had any doubts about the truth of the case of the petitioner that he had been selected and appointed by the panchayat in its meeting held on 21. 8. 2007. He referred to the provisions of the Panchayat Karmi Scheme formulated by the Govt. of madhya Pradesh, Panchayat and Rural Development Department on 12th september 1995 to show that under the scheme, the Panchayat could appoint a Panchayat Karmi by resolution and that the Collector had no power to issue an advertisement and appoint a Panchayat Karmi.